| Author |
 Topic  |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
USA
0 Posts |
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
United Kingdom
12543 Posts |
 Posted - 06/11/2001 : 11:50:34
|
This looks like a reason to move to Oracle.
SQL server can't be any good if it's that easy 
|
 |
|
|
dtong004
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/12/2001 : 14:48:16
|
What I am thinking is that Oracle will begin to lost its market leadership in near future. The reason is, Oracle does not own its own OS system. If we take look at other DB vendro. NCR does have its own OS. It is way more powerful than Oracle.
DB2, runs better on AIX.
MS-SQL, runs better on Windows
Sybase is diminishing, so is Informatix. The next would be Oracle. They all don't have their own OS.
If you check the performance site, barely we can see Oracle name out there now.
What do you guys think?
Daniel
|
|
|
|
RickD
Slow But Sure Yak Herding Master
United Kingdom
3560 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 07:55:32
|
I think you are sounding paranoid. Oracle is still alive and kicking, espacially in the finance sector...
I would prefer it if they all switched to SQL Server, it would make my life and finding a job easier
|
|
|
|
JustinBigelow
SQL Gigolo
USA
1157 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 09:30:10
|
Even if everybody were to realize that SQL Server is the way to go Oracle will still be heavily entrenched in the backends of a lot of corporations so they will continue supporting it and demanding upgrades. Just look at Lotus Notes (why oh why won't that program go away  )
Justin
|
|
|
|
RickD
Slow But Sure Yak Herding Master
United Kingdom
3560 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 09:50:45
|
I suppose you're right, but speak to an Oracle DBA and he will say SQL Server is too easy to use(how little they know) until they actually try to do something the GUI doesn't support... That's when most people seem to realise it's a real RDBMS..
Than again you'll always get the dyed in the wool Oracle DBA's who refuse to acknowledge there are better products out there... 
|
|
|
|
Merkin
Funky Drop Bear Fearing SQL Dude!
Australia
4970 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 10:03:20
|
quote:
Than again you'll always get the dyed in the wool Oracle DBA's who refuse to acknowledge there are better products out there
That is not restricted to RDBMS's everywhere in technology there is this "mine is bigger that yours" mentality.
Linux v Windows v Mac v BeOS v BSD etc
ASP v Cold Fusion v PHP v Perl v JSP
etc etc etc
Boring
Most people refuse to look at the fact that every product has strengths and weaknesses but at the end of the day you have to use the tool that you are good at. There is no point using SQL server if you completely rock at Oracle. Likewise with various programming languages, you see posts on boards like "I use ASP, should I use cold fusion ? " Hell no! Not if your skills (and those of your team) lie with ASP.
That being said, I aged about 5 years on the last Oracle project I did ..... Piece of crap that it is 
Anyway, just needed to get that out of my system.......
Damian |
|
|
|
JustinBigelow
SQL Gigolo
USA
1157 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 10:11:45
|
I agree with merkin. I'm pretty much a Microsoft person through and through. Sure Linux is a stable platform and oracle is powerful RDMS but I've got more than enough to keep me busy just trying to stay current with all of Microsoft's technologies. If there were factors other than peronal comfort for switching allegiances (say for instance the job market for SQL Server folks became nil) I would take a look at jumping ship; but as it stands I don't have any compelling reasons to try and spread myself any thinner.
my 2c
Justin
|
|
|
|
rvargas
Starting Member
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 15:45:50
|
Well, I support both products. I think that as long as a database is 200Gb or smaller (as most are) SQL Server has the advantage.
Producing Excel reports is also a minor matter when using SQL Server. When you start growing beyond that, Oracle has the advantage of running on UNIX. This observation may not be valid with WIndows EE, or whatever. My only pet peeve with SQL Server is that the standard concatenation character(s) should be "||" and not "+". (That's really stretching for something, huh?)
|
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
United Kingdom
12543 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 20:34:15
|
I get the feeling stick with the technology you know.
If you are experienced with Oracle that will be better, ditto for sql server.
If you know neither then I suspect Oracle is more forgiving once installed.
Whenever I have replaced Oracle systems with sql server they have always run much faster and more reliably.
But then I have had more dramatic gains from rewriting sql server systems.
I suspect it is easier to screw up in sql server if you don't know what you are doing - or don't bother to find out (at sites like this?).
And a database that is happy at 10G isn't likely to scale to 200G (at least on sql server) without some work.
And not surprisingly a database of 100Mb is very unlikely to scale to 10G without work.
My view - it's pointless developing the SPs on the smaller system if you know live is not going to fit into memory (that's a 'told you so, yet again').
Edited by - nr on 06/13/2001 20:40:03 |
|
|
|
graz
Chief SQLTeam Crack Dealer
USA
4128 Posts |
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
United Kingdom
12543 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 21:11:03
|
I like it.
But SQL Server's ease of use also creates serious problems. SQL Server is so simple to set up that almost anyone with little or no training can install the software. As a result, SQL Server applications can perform poorly and seriously affect important business functions. More often than not, SQL Server gets blamed for this situation by managers who think they should have used "one of those incredibly expensive databases running on one of those four-letter OSs".
The other way of putting it is - if you pay peanuts you get monkeys
But then you don't necessarily get what you pay for.
This probably applies more to database schema and SP coding (look at some of the questions on this and other sites)
The solution to this problem might be a product that's so difficult to install and administer that only highly trained IT staff can handle it.
I don't want to spend all my time (or much of it) installing and administering - but I'm happy telling other people how to do it - once. But then I won't leave a company in a situation where they have a system which they can't maintain (however much they want me too ).
|
|
|
|
dtong004
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 11:12:45
|
In my post, I say Oracle's market is going to diminish. I think their problem is they don't have OS for.
If we look at 100GB database and under, MS-SQL is certainily better. WITH SQL-2000, I would think it will go up to 300GB.
Above 500 GB, DB2-UDB and NCR is certaily better than Oracle. Especially over 1 terabyte. NCR is definitely better.
All the DB2, NCR, MS-SQL have OS advanatege. with DB2 and NCR pushing down, MS-SQL bumps up. I did not see the promising market for Oracle. I wish Oralce will NOT become next NOVEL.
Well, Oracle still have a solid market share and their share is increasing, as informtix and sybase is losing share. After that, except Oracle merge with SUN, I do not think Oracle can compete with MS-SQL, DB2 and NCR.
That is my thoughts.
Daniel
|
|
|
|
eddieinLA
Starting Member
USA
1 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2001 : 22:01:46
|
I don't think Oracle's market will go away that quickly. With so many large ERP systems installed on top of Oracle (even SAP a rival that has the most tools for using Oracle versus other DB's) they are not likely to want to migrate the db or walk away from the millions they've invested.
However, the long run is different when MS keeps improving its offering at lower prices to all the new companies wanting these installs. It also comes down to your DBA and developers - if they have real db skills, you can make it perform. If they know how to simply install an app, then yeah monkeys you have.
eddie |
|
|
|
RickD
Slow But Sure Yak Herding Master
United Kingdom
3560 Posts |
|
|
wiremind
Starting Member
1 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2003 : 17:34:59
|
quote:
In my post, I say Oracle's market is going to diminish. I think their problem is they don't have OS for.
If we look at 100GB database and under, MS-SQL is certainily better. WITH SQL-2000, I would think it will go up to 300GB.
Above 500 GB, DB2-UDB and NCR is certaily better than Oracle. Especially over 1 terabyte. NCR is definitely better.
All the DB2, NCR, MS-SQL have OS advanatege. with DB2 and NCR pushing down, MS-SQL bumps up. I did not see the promising market for Oracle. I wish Oralce will NOT become next NOVEL.
Well, Oracle still have a solid market share and their share is increasing, as informtix and sybase is losing share. After that, except Oracle merge with SUN, I do not think Oracle can compete with MS-SQL, DB2 and NCR.
That is my thoughts.
Daniel
As a developer/DBA i must disagree with many of your opinions. First of all MS did not entirely invented SQL Server , it was created by Sybase and as usual bought by MS.
Second of all, Linux is not just a stable platform but a daugher of UNIX which is the strongest platform , dont compare with AS/400 or VMS. Oracle under unix has greater capabilities then SQL server under MS windoze. Unix as you remember is multi tasking.
I ran into a factory server with SQL server 2000 , and guess what, i saw that in idling mode the thing was eating 300+M of operative memory RAM , what is the purpose of that.
I may be wrong but as a junio Oracle DBA, i quite enjoy the *NIX style architecture of Oracle. THe RAC ( real application cluster ) is a progressive evidence of Oracle living.
Please dont be offended MS people but easiness comes with problems, so enjoy the UNIX life under which serious company lives.
|
|
|
|
Merkin
Funky Drop Bear Fearing SQL Dude!
Australia
4970 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2003 : 05:00:44
|
I love it when a 2 year old thread gets revived
[edit]
quote:
As a developer/DBA i must disagree with many of your opinions.
Actually most of the human race disagrees with Daniel's "oponions". You don't see much of him round here anymore.
Damian
Edited by - merkin on 02/17/2003 05:03:18 |
|
|
|
ameisez
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2003 : 04:58:22
|
Just butting in folks.
Im the newbies among the newbies and i want to seek for advice from good DBAs here.
I am about to handle a Database coz the management thinks I am a wizard (eventhough i never pretended to be) and they want me to handle a loyalty program.
first the company we are dealing suggested ORACLE, but after sometime and for any reason I dont know, they told us we can use MS SQL instead. Thats why Im hear now, I want to ask if I did the right thing coz i agreed to them to use MSSQL? I still have the chance of changing my decission if i did it wrong.
excess: I dont have any idea on both (ORACLE & MS SQL) the management is under cost cutting, maybe that is why they just pull me out from customer service to INSTANT DBA ... i might be checking here often when the project comes online |
|
|
|
robvolk
Most Valuable Yak
USA
15568 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2003 : 07:51:24
|
| If they are looking to cut costs, then SQL Server is definitely advantageous. I honestly don't know what Oracle costs these days, but unless they had a fire sale over there it will still be considerably more expensive than SQL Server. You can also install SQL Server far quicker and more easily than Oracle. Lastly, if you are a Windows shop, don't even think of running Oracle. If you're not running Unix then Oracle is not for you. |
|
|
|
nr
SQLTeam MVY
United Kingdom
12543 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2003 : 09:19:56
|
If you are really interested look at the very long and tedious current thread at
http://www.developersdex.com/sql/message.asp?r=3315359&p=580
I still think it doesn't matter what the products can do - you will build a better system in whichever you know better.
==========================================
Cursors are useful if you don't know sql.
DTS can be used in a similar way.
Beer is not cold and it isn't fizzy. |
|
|
|
ameisez
Starting Member
6 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2003 : 02:01:13
|
Ok guys... I need your comment and advice here.. ill tell you the complete setting.
=========================
The loyalty program is on a shopping mall.
All participating shops will give discount to loyalty program member
Each member has a chip card
Each store has a Chip Card reader
All data transaction will be logged in the local machine
At the end of the day, the server will dial and connect to collect the data from each terminal on participating outlets
After collecting data, the server will print activity log to see if all the data has been collected without any errors
Then print the summary of the data that has just been collected
========================
Now the Administrator (that's me) has no idea on any of MS SQL or ORACLE that is why we stated in the contract that I should have the propper training before the developing company leave us.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO KNOWS MS SQL OR ORACLE OR BOTH...
WHICH IS A MORE ADVANTAGEOUS CHOICE? ORACLE OR MS SQL AND WHY???
by the way... I know PC (Windows) OS and nothing else
and one last thing??? How hard will it be to be a DBA if you know nothing but MS ACCESS???
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Article: Oracle vs. SQL Server - An Issue Of Complexity
